*2 But all the circumstances involved. of WATERMAN, Judge. Circuit by showing held to overcome this is be Judge With Chief I CLARK favored process "of subinfeudation a kind of reconsideration era banc. I reaffirm the whereby pushed the class certain of are my dissenting content opinion, of 270 secondary rank, represented a to be into 365, pages F.2d at 375-378. by “virtually” (sic!) in someone who HINCKS, Before LUMBARD and by represented else. turn someone is to be WATERMAN, Judges. Circuit hierarchy There is word of this not a among itself, representees in and the rule contrary mani- whole to the the idea is Rehearing. On Petition for person rule. The ac- fest intent of the cepted by representative as the the court PER CURIAM. fiduciary obviously hoc bear is the to —ad petition The rehearing for is denied. responsibility the full without the inter- party. position If of doubtful third some WATERMAN, Judge. Circuit among ranking representers is to such grant I I petition dissent. would the generally applica- be worked out for all rehearing. for 23(a) its tions of F.R. it is obvious that utility largely destroyed, will be since any pretty surely will be in class there directly represen-
some in more need of
tation than or at court others least a may persuaded be so to if think.1 And exception ap- only, is it made a limited Sorin, A. Arthur SORIN and Henrietta plying perhaps there, here and it is even Petitioners, confusing more dubious because of the v. nature of its reach and because of the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV necessarily partiality upon a attendant ENUE, Respondent. rule of uncertain incidence. 254, No. Docket 25325. Looking next at trust the action under Appeals States Court of United 23(b) properly F.R. the rule would seem Second Circuit. inclusive of all owners of shares of stock Argued 10, 1959. April ordinary way an in common sense with- 23, 1959. legal title, DecidedNov. out technical distinctions of interest, Judge and the like. Here both Judge Smith and Waterman de- have veloped point the well so that I can add nothing. express regret I therefore at what seems a dismemberment of useful procedure, suggest rules of and that Kassel, Ralph Concannon, Mason G. L. change ought amendment or to come City (Lord, Day Lord, New York & New Supreme from the Court in exercise the City, counsel), petitioners. York of for rule-making upon
of its
report
functions and
advisory
Rice,
Atty.
from
Gen.;
the
or
K.
Asst.
committee
Charles
by
legis-
Harry
George
committees
Jackson,
Baum,
authorized
recent
Lee A.
W.
agreed
Burnham,
Cir.,
973,
1. Text
-writers seem rather
2
inson v.
F.2d
that
197
potentialities
4,
979,
the fullest
of the class suit
certiorari
344
and note
denied
U.S.
realized;
they urge
169,
875,
have not been
and
its
73